I will die on this hill.
My complaint about the excessive use of anonymous sources is general, but the specific case here is the CNN reporter who cited a republican source and that members " want to vote to impeach but they legitimately fear for their lives and their families' lives."
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-trump-impeachment-vote-01-13-21/h_4fbc3126e600a45947bbd3fbd061deda
The AP has a guide of when it is okay to use anonymous sources:
QuoteWhen is it OK to use anonymous sources?
To strengthen the trust of our audiences around the world and to meet our own values, we long ago set tough rules on attribution and on the use of anonymous sources.
No one wants news that's built on unnamed, unaccountable sources and facts seemingly pulled from the air. Politicians and members of the public sometimes have cited such journalism as a reason for the fall in trust in the media. A poll in May by the AP-supported Media Insight Project was bleak: only 17 percent of Americans now judge the "news media" as very accurate.
Reporting with loose attribution or anonymous sourcing can be dismissed as fake by the skeptical reader or politician. On the other hand, a report filled with verifiable facts attributed to named and authoritative sources of information is impossible to dispute.
Our standard is that AP news reports must attribute any disputable facts that were not witnessed, gathered or confirmed on our own. In other words, if the information is secondhand — somebody told us something — the information should be attributed to named sources in our stories. Being transparent about precisely where the facts or views contained in our report come from is one of the strongest ways to build and maintain trust in AP's journalism.
Attribution should come just before or just after the first reference to the information that is used — in the same sentence.
If in subsequent paragraphs we provide more details from the same source, we should restate the attribution unless it is perfectly clear from the context that we are referring to the previously cited source for the information.
On Anonymous Sources
In a perfect world, all information in the AP report would be attributed to named, on-the-record sources who could be held accountable for the accuracy of their information.
At times, however, there may be a need to use anonymously attributed information in order to tell an important story. This is allowed by AP in carefully defined circumstances: if the information is from a credible source with direct knowledge; if it brings to light important facts that otherwise would remain in the shadows; and if the information can be obtained no other way.
Valuable news often originates from whistleblowers who would be in danger of losing their jobs, or in some countries their freedom or their lives, if the information was traced back to them. News of official abuses, human rights violations, war crimes or environmental dereliction are some of the areas where anonymous sourcing has broken a story wide open — think Watergate or Abu Ghraib. In cases such as these, with the approval of managers, the AP may grant anonymity to the whistleblower, in text withholding the name and in video and photos showing them from behind or in silhouette.
In addition, for anonymously sourced material, the AP routinely requires extra corroboration in the form of more than one independent source. And managers need to approve any use of anonymous material.
At the same time, there is a lesser variety of anonymity that has become all too common. Sometimes, paid spokespeople find it inconvenient to allow their names to be used even for official information. In some parts of the world, it is against rules or custom for spokespeople to be identified by name. Wherever possible, AP journalists are urged to push back against such requests for anonymity, pressing for permission to use the name or bypassing the information if necessary.
Journalists themselves can help to resist the contagion of anonymity by avoiding such tropes as citing unnamed "diplomats" or "analysts" for facts or views that are widely prevalent and could be obtained easily enough elsewhere. Another poor practice is quoting from social media posts in which the real identity of the poster is unknown. (Just say no, no matter how pithy or amusing the tweet.) Both these practices are banned under our standards.
The bar against anonymous comment is set high at AP. When the AP does agree to use anonymous material, reporters must have a good reason. We should provide as specific as possible a description of the source to establish his or her credibility (for example, "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the agency directly involved in the discussions") and, when relevant, describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If a story hinges on leaked documents, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.
AP's Statement of News Values and Principles lays out the rules. Anonymous material may be used only if:
The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
https://blog.ap.org/behind-the-news/when-is-it-ok-to-use-anonymous-sources
In this case, we have an anonymous Republican source describing the motivations of multiple anonymous Republican congressmen.
If a politician stands up on live TV and says, "The reason I support this policy is because of my belief in xyz" I take that with a grain of salt. I'm getting the information firsthand but politicians are notorious for telling people what they want to hear.
So in this case, we apparently have politicians telling someone else working in politics something, who conveys it to us through a reporter. The reporter of course is dependent on her reputation for integrity, but also has a business need to drive clicks and views.
At a minimum, if this story was to be reported, it should have the congressmen who wanted to vote to impeach but were too scared named in the article.
Thats all I have to say about that.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 10:52:41 AM
Thats all I have to say about that.
This is a blatant lie.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 10:52:41 AM
I will die on this hill.
.....
Thats all I have to say about that.
AR, would you trust an anonymous source to tell you there was a route, unmonitored by authorities, that lead to a good rock climbing site?
I think it should be up to the journalist, but I think they should ask themselves the following questions (largely by Alex Hern):
Has this source been contradicted on the record before?
Does this source have a history of accurately stating the future actions of the executive/MP/regulator etc?
Would this source refuse to speak if you refused to grant them anonymity?
Is the quote from this source worth granting anonymity?
Anonymous sources are really useful in informing the public what politicians/other leaders are really thinking/the fights going on in the background - I've really no issue with them. But they can also be misused for spin purposes or just used for no good reason so I think should be handled critically by journalists which is why I think those questions are helpful.
For example, that clip of Mark Meadows giving basically a fairly standard, quite bland White House statement anonymously, is in my view an abuse of it because that statement has value coming from the White House Chief of Staff - it's meaningless and anodyne coming from an anonymous source. So there's no point except providing him with deniability - you're not getting additional information that is of value to the public. Similarly I don't see the value in Robert Peston getting an anonymous briefing from Dominic Cummings of new lockdown measures half an hour before they're announced, I don't think there's much value in reporting that.
Flipside is, for me the Blair years, there were loads of anonymous briefings from cabinet ministers and members of their team about the rift between Blair and Brown. At the time I thought it was just tittle-tattle and not really that important. Since then numerous people have published their diaries or memoirs and the rift was worse than was being reported through the anonymous sources and it was affecting the way government functioned. That's really important to know.
Similarly I think anonymous sources such as civil servants or other non-political actors often have information that's important for the public to know and it's the only way I can see certain types of national security issues being reported and I think that's important, rather than just drawing a veil on it behind the standard "the government never comments on intelligence issues" response.
If enough people changed their names to be identical this problem would be solved.
AF's lack of understanding of how journalism works provides at least some explanation of how Trumpism can exist assuming the same sort of ignorance (willful or otherwise) exists throughout the Trumpist base.
I will hold opinions until one of our actual (or former) journalists explains what's wrong with AR's view.
QuoteAt a minimum, if this story was to be reported, it should have the congressmen who wanted to vote to impeach but were too scared named in the article.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fce%2Fce44f2fe8272a37e8569910197084b2d7ceefb4d767547a47171eae0a5c89900.jpg&hash=39f4debfaf2f32fcd604715a5f12f5447a67940f)
Quote from: Habbaku on January 14, 2021, 11:53:20 AM
I will hold opinions until one of our actual (or former) journalists explains what's wrong with AR's view.
Serious question. Do they not teach this stuff in US civics classes.
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2021, 11:07:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 10:52:41 AM
I will die on this hill.
.....
Thats all I have to say about that.
AR, would you trust an anonymous source to tell you there was a route, unmonitored by authorities, that lead to a good rock climbing site?
There is literally a website with hundreds of thousands of such routes, that I consult all the time. And it is riddled with inaccuracies.
Quote from: Tyr on January 14, 2021, 11:55:55 AM
QuoteAt a minimum, if this story was to be reported, it should have the congressmen who wanted to vote to impeach but were too scared named in the article.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fce%2Fce44f2fe8272a37e8569910197084b2d7ceefb4d767547a47171eae0a5c89900.jpg&hash=39f4debfaf2f32fcd604715a5f12f5447a67940f)
Please explain.
Quote from: PDH on January 14, 2021, 11:03:06 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 10:52:41 AM
Thats all I have to say about that.
This is a blatant lie.
It absolutely is. The incentives for being truthful really are reduced when you can say stuff anonymously.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 11:47:14 AM
AF's lack of understanding of how journalism works provides at least some explanation of how Trumpism can exist assuming the same sort of ignorance (willful or otherwise) exists throughout the Trumpist base.
Do you agree with the standards in the opening post describing the AP's use of anonymous sources?
I was commenting on your promise to not say any more.
The explanation has been given multiple times in other threads when you brought up the same point.
New data point for Troll farm participant. AF, Dorsey, Sergei or whatever you call yourself in other forums.
Quote from: PDH on January 14, 2021, 12:16:12 PM
I was commenting on your promise to not say any more.
I know. :huh:
So what's CNN's standard for use of anonymous sources?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 12:13:49 PM
Please explain.
Not doing something because you're afraid you'll be killed for taking that action has its effectiveness drastically undermined by announcing immediately afterwards you would have done it if not for the threat.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 12:16:16 PM
The explanation has been given multiple times in other threads when you brought up the same point.
New data point for Troll farm participant. AF, Dorsey, Sergei or whatever you call yourself in other forums.
CC, I don't think that's fair or appropriate.
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2021, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 12:16:16 PM
The explanation has been given multiple times in other threads when you brought up the same point.
New data point for Troll farm participant. AF, Dorsey, Sergei or whatever you call yourself in other forums.
CC, I don't think that's fair or appropriate.
Why, we know he lies about his identity.
Quote from: Tyr on January 14, 2021, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 12:13:49 PM
Please explain.
Not doing something because you're afraid you'll be killed for taking that action has its effectiveness drastically undermined by announcing immediately afterwards you would have done it if not for the threat.
The journalist didn't give an indication that her source was a representative.
Is your problem with the Journalist not telling you who is the source or is it with the source wanting to be anonymous?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2021, 01:55:51 PM
Is your problem with the Journalist not telling you who is the source or is it with the source wanting to be anonymous?
My problem is with the lack of verifiability, to the point stories are basically reporting gossip.
If the reporter said, "republican sources tell me that congressman joe is going to vote affirmatively on the bill," that is much different than what we have here--over the long run we can evaluate the reporter's track record of providing accurate information through anonymous sources.
So serious question. Do you know the historic fight journalists have waged to not reveal sources and how important that is to reporting on political corruption and incompetence?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 02:04:34 PM
My problem is with the lack of verifiability, to the point stories are basically reporting gossip.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Gossip matters - everyone in DC wants to hear the latest gossip and make political decisions based on it. Why shouldn't we be party to it too?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 02:04:34 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 14, 2021, 01:55:51 PM
Is your problem with the Journalist not telling you who is the source or is it with the source wanting to be anonymous?
My problem is with the lack of verifiability, to the point stories are basically reporting gossip.
Alright. Your issue is that you don't think it's worthy news. I understand, I have this issue with lots of things on the news too. Like every time there is a story on a fire.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 02:08:29 PM
So serious question. Do you know the historic fight journalists have waged to not reveal sources and how important that is to reporting on political corruption and incompetence?
I don't think that is a serious question, because I strongly suspect you know I am.
If this journalist was legally detained and jailed for not revealing her anonymous sources for the story, I would possibly be even more upset than I am about the topic of this thread (if that is possible). Certainly we can allow journalists to be legally free to report stories using anonymous sources while still expecting them to adhere to standards while doing so.
So what exactly the hill you want to die on? That sources should only be protected when the story falls into a category you deem acceptable?
AR, do you think the AP guide is good or bad?
Quote from: The Brain on January 14, 2021, 02:45:48 PM
AR, do you think the AP guide is good or bad?
I think the AP guide is good. My view is that a lot of uses of anonymous sources fall short of that standard.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 02:37:28 PM
So what exactly the hill you want to die on? That sources should only be protected when the story falls into a category you deem acceptable?
That gratuitous use of anonymous sources is shit journalism, the CNN story as the non theoretical example.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 14, 2021, 02:45:48 PM
AR, do you think the AP guide is good or bad?
I think the AP guide is good. My view is that a lot of uses of anonymous sources fall short of that standard.
As you know many news outlets are about telling a story, influencing society in a desired direction. Not about reporting news. If you're an orange fan you might want apples to taste like oranges, but it's an uphill battle.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2021, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 10:52:41 AM
I will die on this hill
Please don't, choose life.
There is a compelling pro choice argument here
CC, serious question, in a thread full of serious questions. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Martinus and 10 being The Brain, where do you think most of your contributions to discourse on this forum land?
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2021, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 14, 2021, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2021, 03:39:48 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 14, 2021, 10:52:41 AM
I will die on this hill
Please don't, choose life.
There is a compelling pro choice argument here
CC, serious question, in a thread full of serious questions. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Martinus and 10 being The Brain, where do you think most of your contributions to discourse on this forum land?
20
I don't have a problem with anonymous sources. If the media doesn't use anonymous sources, the implication is that I will know a lot less, because the fact is a lot of people will only speak on condition of being anonymous. The alternative is they won't speak at all.
I agree with the AP that the bar for using anonymous sources should be high. I have seen no evidence that the CNN story did not meet that bar.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2021, 04:19:29 PMwith 1 being Martinus
A bit harsh on Marty he had some truly visionary ideas. If only the Capitol Police had done more tackling last weeks riot could have stopped in its tracks.
One of the notable characteristics of the Trump era was the brutal vindictiveness meted out on any person who publicly called out the President's actions. People like Vindman and Hill were trashed, had careers destroyed and were exposed to harassment, threats and intimidation. At the same time, the Trump administration displayed an unprecedented lack of transparency, ignoring subpoenas and dismantling and undermining the IGs at every turn. To complain about anonymous sources as if in a vacuum when we live now in this very real context is breathtakingly naive. One of the key roles of an independent media is to hold power accountable and expose abuses. Anonymous sources are critical and essential tools in that task. There are questions of reliability which is why good journalists disclose their use and (hopefully) vet them. The risk of unreliability has to be balanced against the benefit of throwing some sunshine and light over the darkest and most dangerous corridors of power.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2021, 10:34:49 PM
One of the notable characteristics of the Trump era was the brutal vindictiveness meted out on any person who publicly called out the President's actions. People like Vindman and Hill were trashed, had careers destroyed and were exposed to harassment, threats and intimidation. At the same time, the Trump administration displayed an unprecedented lack of transparency, ignoring subpoenas and dismantling and undermining the IGs at every turn. To complain about anonymous sources as if in a vacuum when we live now in this very real context is breathtakingly naive. One of the key roles of an independent media is to hold power accountable and expose abuses. Anonymous sources are critical and essential tools in that task. There are questions of reliability which is why good journalists disclose their use and (hopefully) vet them. The risk of unreliability has to be balanced against the benefit of throwing some sunshine and light over the darkest and most dangerous corridors of power.
I disagree on two fronts:
-the lesser of the two is that this specific case relates to Congress and not the Executive branch, and the executive is quite notably exiting the scene.
-it is mind numbingly obvious how corrupt and incompetent Trump is. You have senior people that served in the highest levels of his administration, who have come out on the record, under their own names, and detailed just those facts.
Well the specific case is members of Congress who allegedly don't want to identify themselves as crypto anti Trumpites for fear of murder or assault. So to expect them to volunteer their names seems unrealistic.
What is Languish, but a large collection of anonymous sources?
:cool:
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2021, 10:04:55 AM
What is Languish, but a large collection of anonymous sources?
:cool:
Says who?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2021, 09:39:01 AM
Well the specific case is members of Congress who allegedly don't want to identify themselves as crypto anti Trumpites for fear of murder or assault. So to expect them to volunteer their names seems unrealistic.
So that requires complete double anonymity? Both the rep and the source need to stay anonymous?
If the report was, "We talked to a rep who said he would vote for impeachment, but was voting otherwise due to fear of murder or assault" - cool.
If the report was "We talked to a republican staffer who said congressman jimmy johnson would vote for impeachment, but won't because of fear of murder or assault"...also cool.
If the report was "We talked to a republican staffer joe green who said there were representatives that would vote for impeachment, but won't because of fear of murder or assault"...much more reasonable.
If people that vote based on fear for their lives aren't named and shamed, how can they be impeached? This kind of dereliction of duty has to be dealt with. Harshly.
And like I said, it seems really weird that you would tell another soul that you goofed up like this. If there actually exists someone who claims to have voted based on fear I doubt that they are telling the truth. This whole business smells.
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2021, 10:04:55 AM
What is Languish, but a large collection of anonymous sources?
:cool:
We aren't anonymous, I know who all you people are.
To prove it, here is a photo of Grumbler
(https://i.imgur.com/1QurPWe.png)
I never thought Languish would sink to doxing. :(
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 15, 2021, 10:56:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2021, 09:39:01 AM
Well the specific case is members of Congress who allegedly don't want to identify themselves as crypto anti Trumpites for fear of murder or assault. So to expect them to volunteer their names seems unrealistic.
So that requires complete double anonymity? Both the rep and the source need to stay anonymous?
If the source is the rep, then obviously yes.
If the source is someone close to the rep — like a staffer — then revealing that name would make it to trivial to ID the rep and potentially put the staffer at risk.
Such are the problems that arise when domestic terrorists are allowed to run amok.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2021, 02:21:45 PM
If the source is the rep, then obviously yes.
If the source is the rep, then identify that the source is a rep and I have no problem with the source remaining anonymous.
Quote
If the source is someone close to the rep — like a staffer — then revealing that name would make it to trivial to ID the rep and potentially put the staffer at risk.
Such are the problems that arise when domestic terrorists are allowed to run amok.
I don't buy this at all.
A Congressperson being cowed into a subservient role to the executive branch is a major news story and a failure of the Congressperson to live up to his/her oath of office. There is a compelling public interest to know the identity of such people, so they can be voted out of office if they do not resign. I completely understand why you need to give anonymity to a Congressperson in such a situation if they come forward and share this with a reporter: while they may be failing to do their job, but obviously they wouldn't come forward otherwise. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Second, the report indicated that there were multiple members of congress that were cowed by fear into voting not to impeach. So while the source could be a staffer on a particular congressperson's team, and identifying the staffer could implicate his/her congressperson, it obviously goes beyond that.
Third, you could at the very minimum explain more details as to the source. For example, "we are not revealing the source because it is a member of one of the Congressperson's team and would only talk to us on condition of anonymity, to avoid harm coming to that Congressperson." That would at least be somewhat logical. But for all we know this was a Republican who supported impeachment: which would place the story in an entirely different context. If Lynn Cheney was the source, for example, perhaps she was just trying to make herself appear to be a heroic figure.
What would be Liz Cheney's motivation to say anonymously that she has received death threats?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2021, 02:58:41 PM
What would be Liz Cheney's motivation to say anonymously that she has received death threats?
For the members voting to impeach, it certainly makes them seem to be on the courageous side, doesn't it?
I'm really not trying to go down a rabbit hole of this single episode. In general I think anonymous sources get overused, and I started to pick up a tweet from Maggie Haberman to kick off this topic, grumbler gave some push back on it being a tweet not really journalism (which is really a separate topic), this story was at hand, so I went with this one.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 15, 2021, 04:02:51 PM
For the members voting to impeach, it certainly makes them seem to be on the courageous side, doesn't it?
Sure, if Liz stood up at a microphone and said "I've received death threats," she would sound courageous.
What does she gain by doing it anonymously?
We know for a fact that GOP representatives who voted for impeachment have received various serious threats because Meijer went public with that fact and also mentioned he has personal security measures with others.
I agree his stance is courageous and better than those who will not go public but I understand why others might choose to be more careful.
It is also understandable that reporters do not always disclose even the more general description of the source given that the source may not have given the reporter permission to do so and the kinds of mole hunts that have gone in in recent years chasing leaks.
Maybe the reporter had a very plugged in source -- possibly even a rep confessing -- maybe she didn't. You have more than a thousand capitol hill republicans and a couple hundred reps: a story that a republican source on capital hill says that some congresspeople are voting a certain way out of fear could be completely accurate and at the same time completely meaningless (she could have just found someone stating their guess of what was happening, or providing spin for their own advantage).
If you aren't able/willing to give the viewer a bit more context, the reference to a "source" is pointless.
If Fox News wanders over to Capitol Hill and puts out a story with the exact same type of sourcing, but stating that "republicans voting against impeachment were voting out of conviction - with the exception of the 10 voting for impeachment, the caucus was against it" - would that be meaningful? I'd certainly say not.
Have you ever talked to a reporter AR?
Typically, if it's a friendly interview, you discuss what can and cannot be disclosed to the public before you talk, including to what degree you're willing to be identified. You make clear what's on the record and what's off the record. Those decisions are all made by the person talking to the reporter. Any reporter who does not abide by the limits set by their sources will soon be out of sources (and possibly run into ethics complaints).
Whether you think the anonymous sources quoted by a reporter are credible or not is up to you, and should ideally be informed by your knowledge of that reporter's record.
If you don't trust many - or any - of them that's your issue, not an issue with the system. And if you think the information being shared is pointless, that's your business. Others clearly do not.
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2021, 05:15:31 PM
Have you ever talked to a reporter AR?
Nope.
I don't think reporters should be treated like priests where you accept their statements without any corroborative details. If you want to do that, cool -- but I'm more of a skeptic.
In this specific case, the reporter's description could be from a very well places source and highly meaningful, or it could be equally factual and yet meaningless. It leaves the impression that there are republican congresspeople that wanted to vote for impeachment but were intimidated not to: it is an impression that may one day be proven but is impossible to ever disprove.
What do you call something that can never be disproven?
My point of view is that if all you can say is that some anonymous republican on the hill told you that some congressman is being motivated by xyz, you don't have a story. Shame on anyone that takes it seriously enough to discuss, unless they are discussing your shitty reporting standards in which case it is worth many pages of commentary.
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2021, 05:15:31 PM
Have you ever talked to a reporter AR?
Actually, I forgot...I have!
My company got a call from a reporter about this time last year wanting information on how our company's asia operations to put in context exposure to covid. My reaction was not to give data because we might have liability if we gave bad information, but I was told to help.
So the reporter asked me a couple pointless questions about the scope of our facilities in asia, and I didn't know the answer and told him I'd have to contact our offices in asia to get him the answers but it was nighttime there so i wouldn't have the info until tomorrow. He said that was too late because he had a filing deadline, but he had some old data and asked if that was right. I said it probably was back then if it came from us, but it is out of date and is probably not right anymore, and if he wanted the right data he would have to wait until the morning. I got the information for him the next morning, but they had already published the story with the old data.
Fredo, your motivation for wanting to see less use of unnamed sources is narcissistic. If a reporter uses unnamed sources in a story, you would rather the story not exist. Yet others, such as myself, are able to read that story, discount it for the appropriate reasons, and come to our own conclusion about how truthful it is. You want to deprive me of something that provides me value.
A non-narcissistic alternative would be to ignore these stories.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2021, 06:14:30 PM
Fredo, your motivation for wanting to see less use of unnamed sources is narcissistic. If a reporter uses unnamed sources in a story, you would rather the story not exist.
My understanding is that AR thinks the AP standard is fine.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 15, 2021, 05:30:14 PM
I don't think reporters should be treated like priests where you accept their statements without any corroborative details. If you want to do that, cool -- but I'm more of a skeptic.
Obviously you judge them based on their individual reputations, and the reputations of the organizations they report for (and who provide editorial oversight).
QuoteIn this specific case, the reporter's description could be from a very well places source and highly meaningful, or it could be equally factual and yet meaningless. It leaves the impression that there are republican congresspeople that wanted to vote for impeachment but were intimidated not to: it is an impression that may one day be proven but is impossible to ever disprove.
Yup. So you look at their track records. How much what they've reported like that have been a good bellwether for future events? How many people have later come out, and clearly and on the record, corroborated what they've said?
Anonymous sources quoted on Breitbart or AlfredRussell.RU are less reliable than those quoted by established reporters published in reputable media.
QuoteMy point of view is that if all you can say is that some anonymous republican on the hill told you that some congressman is being motivated by xyz, you don't have a story. Shame on anyone that takes it seriously enough to discuss, unless they are discussing your shitty reporting standards in which case it is worth many pages of commentary.
You totally do have a story. And it's not shitty reporting standards. You're just being lazy and excusing that laziness by finding fault with something that has worked quite well for centuries.
Didn't he die on that hill or did he march his well ordered opinions back down again?
You're probably not a very good rock climber if you wind up dying on a hill.
Quote from: mongers on January 15, 2021, 08:18:21 PM
Didn't he die on that hill or did he march his well ordered opinions back down again?
He made a deal with God.
I have it from reliable anonymous sources that Dorsey is a douchenozzle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2021, 06:14:30 PM
Fredo, your motivation for wanting to see less use of unnamed sources is narcissistic. If a reporter uses unnamed sources in a story, you would rather the story not exist. Yet others, such as myself, are able to read that story, discount it for the appropriate reasons, and come to our own conclusion about how truthful it is. You want to deprive me of something that provides me value.
A non-narcissistic alternative would be to ignore these stories.
By an equal measure your motivation for wanting to see more use of unnamed sources is narcissistic. It isn't the case that if standards were tighter we would have 100 well sourced stories, but with looser standards we have 150 stories: the original 100 plus 50 more.
The number of stories is more or less defined. CNN doesn't sign off for the evening telling the audience "we only got 20 hours of stories today so we have to sign off for the last 4". Newspapers are reasonably consistent lengths whatever their reporters come up with.
I expect that the capitol hill team for CNN was going to report some story that day. They went with "some guy told us some other guys told him that they did x because of y". Maybe their backup was something trivial like "Mitch McConnell said he will have to see how the nomination process plays out to decide whether he supports Biden's cabinet appointments." I'd prefer the latter story, you'd prefer the former, it is more or less a mutually exclusive situation. And the fact we are talking about the former and would obviously glaze over the latter is a reason standards are slipping in the much more competitive and fragmented journalistic environment.
Quote from: katmai on January 16, 2021, 05:43:12 AM
I have it from reliable anonymous sources that Dorsey is a douchenozzle.
You seriously couldn't find anyone willing to go on the record with that? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2021, 07:46:12 PM
Yup. So you look at their track records. How much what they've reported like that have been a good bellwether for future events? How many people have later come out, and clearly and on the record, corroborated what they've said?
Anonymous sources quoted on Breitbart or AlfredRussell.RU are less reliable than those quoted by established reporters published in reputable media.
But it is impossible to have a negative track record in this instance!
It doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand that there are disprovable and non disprovable stories. I think upthread I distinguished between the two. If the story is "senior administration officials tell me that next week they are going to do xyz" - I'm fine with that! Yes it is less reliable than if a senior administration official put his or her name behind it, but people are putting their reputations on the journalist, and the journalist is ultimately putting his/her reputation on the line with the audience. Everyone will know in a week if the journalist had good sources or BS ones.
But here: it is impossible for the journalist to ever know her sources were lying to her (assuming they were). It is also impossible for the audience to know (again assuming they are lying).
It doesn't take a very sophisticated person to realize that their reputation is at stake in disprovable stories, and to thus use a high standard with those, while being looser with the ones that aren't disprovable.
So I don't know if you guys remember this at all...this goes back 15-20 years. I used to read slate and salon and got a kick out of submitting anonymous letters to the advice columnist. They would usually be involved and ridiculous. I never got published by slate, but I got a couple on salon. I got a big kick out of that. :)
You may also vaguely remember that Michael Moore was a phenomena for a while and published a book of letters from military people denouncing the Iraq War. It was on the best seller list. He used anonymous letters. After the book came out, I thought, "I wonder how valid these letters are?" So I wrote him a fake letter, and a few days later it wasn't just on his website, it was the featured letter. There were no attempts to validate my identity, until mongers emailed him that I was a fake. Then they contacted me and I told them I was a fake and they took the story down. :(
Michael Moore and the salon advice columnist are not exactly the best journalistic models. Their shortcomings as journalists go far far beyond use (or abuse) of un-named sources.
I think one check on journalists abusing anonymous sources is that they can't just pretend that consequences of getting it wrong don't apply to them. There are probably more than a few people who make it their job to sting them with false gossip.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 16, 2021, 01:48:25 PM
Michael Moore and the salon advice columnist are not exactly the best journalistic models. Their shortcomings as journalists go far far beyond use (or abuse) of un-named sources.
I'm an accountant at a bigger company...I've worked on M&A transactions which ended up leaking to the press...I wonder how hard it would be for me to get BS stories into the business section. :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2021, 09:46:50 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 16, 2021, 01:48:25 PM
Michael Moore and the salon advice columnist are not exactly the best journalistic models. Their shortcomings as journalists go far far beyond use (or abuse) of un-named sources.
I'm an accountant at a bigger company...I've worked on M&A transactions which ended up leaking to the press...I wonder how hard it would be for me to get BS stories into the business section. :hmm:
It might not be that hard but if you lie don't expect your press contact to keep quiet when the SEC calls ...